Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
 

This is a request for Subaru, Jeep, Toyota, etc. to produce something
like the old Subaru Brat, which was essentially a 4WD car with low
range gearing. With today's engine technology it could get gas mileage
in the low to mid 30s on the highway, while having true off-road
capability.

Today's options are limited to "cute utes" or "soft utes" which lack
low range and are designated AWD rather than 4WD (Honda CR-V, Toyota
RAV-4, Ford Escape, and so on). To get offroad-capable 4WD, you're
forced to buy a truck or SUV that can only get MPG in the teens to low
20s. There are plenty of conservationists who want to go off-road and
they shouldn't have to buy a bloated rig.

The 2005 Toyota Tacomas and Nissan Frontiers show the trend toward size
over efficiency. Engineers managed to maintain mediocre fuel mileage
while making them as big as possible (using vvt, etc.) , but they could
have made them smaller, more agile and more efficient. A truck that
went from compact to midsize and became 5" wider with a 10" longer
wheelbase is not "better" off-road just because of a fancy new
drivetrain.

Jeeps, including the Liberty, are still gas guzzlers and the ancient
Wrangler styling could be made a lot more aerodynamic. I see a lot of
potential for redesigning the Wrangler into something that could manage
mid to upper 20s MPG and wouldn't even have to be a hybrid.

A powerplant with "only" 150 HP and similar torque could get the job
done in the right chassis. We need to stop building bigger engines just
to move bigger trucks or satisfy high school egos. People did fine with
less before they were hyped into "needing" 200+ HP to keep up with the
pack. For nitwits, tailgating someone on a 7% grade at 80 MPH may be
perceived as vital, but when you're off-road, excessive power is rarely
needed. Low-end torque (relative to body weight) is more important, and
lighter vehicles need less of it. Smaller engines reduce weight also.

My perfect vehicle would have AWD aspects (auto torque split based on
wheel spin) but would also be a tough off-roader with at least 9" of
usable ground clearance; not just at the high points. The current
Subaru Outback is rated at over 8" of clearance but the frame sits too
low to make that very useful. I also see a practical use for ghetto
car-hopping technology. They could use hydraulics to lift the frame on
dirt roads and drop it back down for aerodynamics on pavement.

C.T.

You forgot one thing: With every new restyle, the price has jumped exponentially. Tacomas and ****ans are edging closer to
$30,000. Have you seen what Toy wants for a ****ing RAV? Give me a break! The auto mfgrs. know that these vehicles (SUVS in
particular as opposed to pickups) hardly ever see dirt. So don't expect any positive changes. The few of us who do go offroad are
the .05% percentile; hence we are overlooked and forgotten. Sad but true. I'd like to just have an old 68 Bronco and Land Cruiser
rather than anything new today, including the Tacoma. Forget Nissan; it's strictly all show and no go.
It must have been back in 1999 I was reading an offroad mag while having a stereo installed in my truck and the big news was that
Jeep was going to dump the Wrangler for something called an Icon. It looked very SUVish with the jellybean shape, eunuch body
construction and diminutive ground clearance. I almost **** when I thought the Wrangler was going bye bye. Well, something must
have obviously changed because the Wrangler stayed and instead we got the Liberty, which looks like a fat RAV. I hope Jeep
doesn't **** with the Wrangler because its one of the few left that has any offroad balls.

"Carl Taylor" > wrote in message oups.com...
: This is a request for Subaru, Jeep, Toyota, etc. to produce something
: like the old Subaru Brat, which was essentially a 4WD car with low
: range gearing. With today's engine technology it could get gas mileage
: in the low to mid 30s on the highway, while having true off-road
: capability.
:
: Today's options are limited to "cute utes" or "soft utes" which lack
: low range and are designated AWD rather than 4WD (Honda CR-V, Toyota
: RAV-4, Ford Escape, and so on). To get offroad-capable 4WD, you're
: forced to buy a truck or SUV that can only get MPG in the teens to low
: 20s. There are plenty of conservationists who want to go off-road and
: they shouldn't have to buy a bloated rig.
:
: The 2005 Toyota Tacomas and Nissan Frontiers show the trend toward size
: over efficiency. Engineers managed to maintain mediocre fuel mileage
: while making them as big as possible (using vvt, etc.) , but they could
: have made them smaller, more agile and more efficient. A truck that
: went from compact to midsize and became 5" wider with a 10" longer
: wheelbase is not "better" off-road just because of a fancy new
: drivetrain.
:
: Jeeps, including the Liberty, are still gas guzzlers and the ancient
: Wrangler styling could be made a lot more aerodynamic. I see a lot of
: potential for redesigning the Wrangler into something that could manage
: mid to upper 20s MPG and wouldn't even have to be a hybrid.
:
: A powerplant with "only" 150 HP and similar torque could get the job
: done in the right chassis. We need to stop building bigger engines just
: to move bigger trucks or satisfy high school egos. People did fine with
: less before they were hyped into "needing" 200+ HP to keep up with the
: pack. For nitwits, tailgating someone on a 7% grade at 80 MPH may be
: perceived as vital, but when you're off-road, excessive power is rarely
: needed. Low-end torque (relative to body weight) is more important, and
: lighter vehicles need less of it. Smaller engines reduce weight also.
:
: My perfect vehicle would have AWD aspects (auto torque split based on
: wheel spin) but would also be a tough off-roader with at least 9" of
: usable ground clearance; not just at the high points. The current
: Subaru Outback is rated at over 8" of clearance but the frame sits too
: low to make that very useful. I also see a practical use for ghetto
: car-hopping technology. They could use hydraulics to lift the frame on
: dirt roads and drop it back down for aerodynamics on pavement.
:
: C.T.
:

Ancient Styling? Then get a Liberty! That was the whole intention with
the Liberty--a vehicle for those who didn't like the simple style of
the Wrangler. Even a minor change (such as that temporary change to
non-round headlights a few years ago) is fought by Jeep owners and
affectenados <sp?> alike.

If you want mileage, get a Prius (or the Honda hybrid) and use the
Wrangler off-road only.

On 12 Feb 2005 09:21:43 -0800, "Carl Taylor"
> wrote:

>Jeeps, including the Liberty, are still gas guzzlers and the ancient
>Wrangler styling could be made a lot more aerodynamic. I see a lot of
>potential for redesigning the Wrangler into something that could manage
>mid to upper 20s MPG and wouldn't even have to be a hybrid.
>

"Carl Taylor" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> This is a request for Subaru, Jeep, Toyota, etc. to produce something
> like the old Subaru Brat, which was essentially a 4WD car with low
> range gearing. With today's engine technology it could get gas mileage
> in the low to mid 30s on the highway, while having true off-road
> capability.
>
> Today's options are limited to "cute utes" or "soft utes" which lack
> low range and are designated AWD rather than 4WD (Honda CR-V, Toyota
> RAV-4, Ford Escape, and so on). To get offroad-capable 4WD, you're
> forced to buy a truck or SUV that can only get MPG in the teens to low
> 20s. There are plenty of conservationists who want to go off-road and
> they shouldn't have to buy a bloated rig.
>
> The 2005 Toyota Tacomas and Nissan Frontiers show the trend toward size
> over efficiency. Engineers managed to maintain mediocre fuel mileage
> while making them as big as possible (using vvt, etc.) , but they could
> have made them smaller, more agile and more efficient. A truck that
> went from compact to midsize and became 5" wider with a 10" longer
> wheelbase is not "better" off-road just because of a fancy new
> drivetrain.
>
> Jeeps, including the Liberty, are still gas guzzlers and the ancient
> Wrangler styling could be made a lot more aerodynamic. I see a lot of
> potential for redesigning the Wrangler into something that could manage
> mid to upper 20s MPG and wouldn't even have to be a hybrid.
>
> A powerplant with "only" 150 HP and similar torque could get the job
> done in the right chassis. We need to stop building bigger engines just
> to move bigger trucks or satisfy high school egos. People did fine with
> less before they were hyped into "needing" 200+ HP to keep up with the
> pack. For nitwits, tailgating someone on a 7% grade at 80 MPH may be
> perceived as vital, but when you're off-road, excessive power is rarely
> needed. Low-end torque (relative to body weight) is more important, and
> lighter vehicles need less of it. Smaller engines reduce weight also.
>
> My perfect vehicle would have AWD aspects (auto torque split based on
> wheel spin) but would also be a tough off-roader with at least 9" of
> usable ground clearance; not just at the high points. The current
> Subaru Outback is rated at over 8" of clearance but the frame sits too
> low to make that very useful. I also see a practical use for ghetto
> car-hopping technology. They could use hydraulics to lift the frame on
> dirt roads and drop it back down for aerodynamics on pavement.
>

As I understand it, attempts to physically modify the Wrangler have been met
with harsh criticism from Jeep enthusiasts. Making it "more aerodynamic"
might alienate current customers. But I've never owned one myself, so I may
be wrong.

I know that the idea of a 250+ HP minivan would have seemed absurd just a
decade ago, but apparently people do want such things. Horsepower sells as
much now as it did in the 1960s, only now it sells across the entire model
line rather than just on the muscle cars and pony cars. On the other hand,
although I don't *need* 250+ HP in my daily driver, I've found that with
"only" 135 HP, I'm being tailgated a lot. I also have to deal with scary
merges onto the expressway, when the plodding SUV in front of me goes 25 on
the entire onramp until the final straight, and then accelerates up to
speed. At that point, I'm left with 3-5 seconds to get to about 70 MPH in a
car that takes about 11 seconds to reach 60. Not a problem if I would have
been able to use the entire onramp as intended. In that instance, I'd love
to have tons of power.

In regards to vehicle hydraulics, some of the older Subarus were available
with air shocks which could raise and lower the vehicle. I know it was
available on the XT, and perhaps also on the Legacy/Liberty. The system had
an "auto" mode which would raise/lower the car as needed, as well as a
manual override. Unfortunately, the shocks eventually would leak, and you
don't even want to know how expensive those parts were. I believe the Audi
Allroad (expensive Outback copycat) has a similar system, but I don't know
how it compares to the Subaru air shocks of 15-20 years ago.

-Matt

Opinions are just that!

HarryS


"Carl Taylor" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> This is a request for Subaru, Jeep, Toyota, etc. to produce something
> like the old Subaru Brat, which was essentially a 4WD car with low
> range gearing. With today's engine technology it could get gas mileage
> in the low to mid 30s on the highway, while having true off-road
> capability.
>
> Today's options are limited to "cute utes" or "soft utes" which lack
> low range and are designated AWD rather than 4WD (Honda CR-V, Toyota
> RAV-4, Ford Escape, and so on). To get offroad-capable 4WD, you're
> forced to buy a truck or SUV that can only get MPG in the teens to low
> 20s. There are plenty of conservationists who want to go off-road and
> they shouldn't have to buy a bloated rig.
>
> The 2005 Toyota Tacomas and Nissan Frontiers show the trend toward size
> over efficiency. Engineers managed to maintain mediocre fuel mileage
> while making them as big as possible (using vvt, etc.) , but they could
> have made them smaller, more agile and more efficient. A truck that
> went from compact to midsize and became 5" wider with a 10" longer
> wheelbase is not "better" off-road just because of a fancy new
> drivetrain.
>
> Jeeps, including the Liberty, are still gas guzzlers and the ancient
> Wrangler styling could be made a lot more aerodynamic. I see a lot of
> potential for redesigning the Wrangler into something that could manage
> mid to upper 20s MPG and wouldn't even have to be a hybrid.
>
> A powerplant with "only" 150 HP and similar torque could get the job
> done in the right chassis. We need to stop building bigger engines just
> to move bigger trucks or satisfy high school egos. People did fine with
> less before they were hyped into "needing" 200+ HP to keep up with the
> pack. For nitwits, tailgating someone on a 7% grade at 80 MPH may be
> perceived as vital, but when you're off-road, excessive power is rarely
> needed. Low-end torque (relative to body weight) is more important, and
> lighter vehicles need less of it. Smaller engines reduce weight also.
>
> My perfect vehicle would have AWD aspects (auto torque split based on
> wheel spin) but would also be a tough off-roader with at least 9" of
> usable ground clearance; not just at the high points. The current
> Subaru Outback is rated at over 8" of clearance but the frame sits too
> low to make that very useful. I also see a practical use for ghetto
> car-hopping technology. They could use hydraulics to lift the frame on
> dirt roads and drop it back down for aerodynamics on pavement.
>
> C.T.
>

Uhh.. didn't Subaru just come out with a new 'Brat'-type vehicle??
http://www.subaru.com/servlet/showro...TrimName=TURBO

Eric
"Carl Taylor" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> This is a request for Subaru, Jeep, Toyota, etc. to produce something
> like the old Subaru Brat, which was essentially a 4WD car with low
> range gearing. With today's engine technology it could get gas mileage
> in the low to mid 30s on the highway, while having true off-road
> capability.
>
> Today's options are limited to "cute utes" or "soft utes" which lack
> low range and are designated AWD rather than 4WD (Honda CR-V, Toyota
> RAV-4, Ford Escape, and so on). To get offroad-capable 4WD, you're
> forced to buy a truck or SUV that can only get MPG in the teens to low
> 20s. There are plenty of conservationists who want to go off-road and
> they shouldn't have to buy a bloated rig.
>
> The 2005 Toyota Tacomas and Nissan Frontiers show the trend toward size
> over efficiency. Engineers managed to maintain mediocre fuel mileage
> while making them as big as possible (using vvt, etc.) , but they could
> have made them smaller, more agile and more efficient. A truck that
> went from compact to midsize and became 5" wider with a 10" longer
> wheelbase is not "better" off-road just because of a fancy new
> drivetrain.
>
> Jeeps, including the Liberty, are still gas guzzlers and the ancient
> Wrangler styling could be made a lot more aerodynamic. I see a lot of
> potential for redesigning the Wrangler into something that could manage
> mid to upper 20s MPG and wouldn't even have to be a hybrid.
>
> A powerplant with "only" 150 HP and similar torque could get the job
> done in the right chassis. We need to stop building bigger engines just
> to move bigger trucks or satisfy high school egos. People did fine with
> less before they were hyped into "needing" 200+ HP to keep up with the
> pack. For nitwits, tailgating someone on a 7% grade at 80 MPH may be
> perceived as vital, but when you're off-road, excessive power is rarely
> needed. Low-end torque (relative to body weight) is more important, and
> lighter vehicles need less of it. Smaller engines reduce weight also.
>
> My perfect vehicle would have AWD aspects (auto torque split based on
> wheel spin) but would also be a tough off-roader with at least 9" of
> usable ground clearance; not just at the high points. The current
> Subaru Outback is rated at over 8" of clearance but the frame sits too
> low to make that very useful. I also see a practical use for ghetto
> car-hopping technology. They could use hydraulics to lift the frame on
> dirt roads and drop it back down for aerodynamics on pavement.
>
> C.T.
>

"Carl Taylor" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> This is a request for Subaru, Jeep, Toyota, etc. to produce something
> like the old Subaru Brat, which was essentially a 4WD car with low
> range gearing. With today's engine technology it could get gas mileage
> in the low to mid 30s on the highway, while having true off-road
> capability.
>
> Today's options are limited to "cute utes" or "soft utes" which lack
> low range and are designated AWD rather than 4WD (Honda CR-V, Toyota
> RAV-4, Ford Escape, and so on). To get offroad-capable 4WD, you're
> forced to buy a truck or SUV that can only get MPG in the teens to low
> 20s. There are plenty of conservationists who want to go off-road and
> they shouldn't have to buy a bloated rig.
>
> The 2005 Toyota Tacomas and Nissan Frontiers show the trend toward size
> over efficiency. Engineers managed to maintain mediocre fuel mileage
> while making them as big as possible (using vvt, etc.) , but they could
> have made them smaller, more agile and more efficient. A truck that
> went from compact to midsize and became 5" wider with a 10" longer
> wheelbase is not "better" off-road just because of a fancy new
> drivetrain.
>
> Jeeps, including the Liberty, are still gas guzzlers and the ancient
> Wrangler styling could be made a lot more aerodynamic. I see a lot of
> potential for redesigning the Wrangler into something that could manage
> mid to upper 20s MPG and wouldn't even have to be a hybrid.
>
> A powerplant with "only" 150 HP and similar torque could get the job
> done in the right chassis. We need to stop building bigger engines just
> to move bigger trucks or satisfy high school egos. People did fine with
> less before they were hyped into "needing" 200+ HP to keep up with the
> pack. For nitwits, tailgating someone on a 7% grade at 80 MPH may be
> perceived as vital, but when you're off-road, excessive power is rarely
> needed. Low-end torque (relative to body weight) is more important, and
> lighter vehicles need less of it. Smaller engines reduce weight also.
>
> My perfect vehicle would have AWD aspects (auto torque split based on
> wheel spin) but would also be a tough off-roader with at least 9" of
> usable ground clearance; not just at the high points. The current
> Subaru Outback is rated at over 8" of clearance but the frame sits too
> low to make that very useful. I also see a practical use for ghetto
> car-hopping technology. They could use hydraulics to lift the frame on
> dirt roads and drop it back down for aerodynamics on pavement.
>
> C.T.
>

I would like to have my 67 289ci bronco again. Only change I would want is a
4 instead of a 3 speed gear box. Never let me stranded, close one time in a
bog up to the doors. W W

How about the Jeep Liberty with the new diesel engine option?

Matt
Doo owner
Manta owner

On 12 Feb 2005 09:21:43 -0800, "Carl Taylor"
> wrote:

>This is a request for Subaru, Jeep, Toyota, etc. to produce something
>like the old Subaru Brat, which was essentially a 4WD car with low
>range gearing. With today's engine technology it could get gas mileage
>in the low to mid 30s on the highway, while having true off-road
>capability.
>
>Today's options are limited to "cute utes" or "soft utes" which lack
>low range and are designated AWD rather than 4WD (Honda CR-V, Toyota
>RAV-4, Ford Escape, and so on). To get offroad-capable 4WD, you're
>forced to buy a truck or SUV that can only get MPG in the teens to low
>20s. There are plenty of conservationists who want to go off-road and
>they shouldn't have to buy a bloated rig.
>
>The 2005 Toyota Tacomas and Nissan Frontiers show the trend toward size
>over efficiency. Engineers managed to maintain mediocre fuel mileage
>while making them as big as possible (using vvt, etc.) , but they could
>have made them smaller, more agile and more efficient. A truck that
>went from compact to midsize and became 5" wider with a 10" longer
>wheelbase is not "better" off-road just because of a fancy new
>drivetrain.
>
>Jeeps, including the Liberty, are still gas guzzlers and the ancient
>Wrangler styling could be made a lot more aerodynamic. I see a lot of
>potential for redesigning the Wrangler into something that could manage
>mid to upper 20s MPG and wouldn't even have to be a hybrid.
>
>A powerplant with "only" 150 HP and similar torque could get the job
>done in the right chassis. We need to stop building bigger engines just
>to move bigger trucks or satisfy high school egos. People did fine with
>less before they were hyped into "needing" 200+ HP to keep up with the
>pack. For nitwits, tailgating someone on a 7% grade at 80 MPH may be
>perceived as vital, but when you're off-road, excessive power is rarely
>needed. Low-end torque (relative to body weight) is more important, and
>lighter vehicles need less of it. Smaller engines reduce weight also.
>
>My perfect vehicle would have AWD aspects (auto torque split based on
>wheel spin) but would also be a tough off-roader with at least 9" of
>usable ground clearance; not just at the high points. The current
>Subaru Outback is rated at over 8" of clearance but the frame sits too
>low to make that very useful. I also see a practical use for ghetto
>car-hopping technology. They could use hydraulics to lift the frame on
>dirt roads and drop it back down for aerodynamics on pavement.
>
>C.T.

Yeah, and it's a flop.

"Eric" > wrote in message
...
> Uhh.. didn't Subaru just come out with a new 'Brat'-type vehicle??
> http://www.subaru.com/servlet/showro...TrimName=TURBO
>
> Eric
> "Carl Taylor" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> This is a request for Subaru, Jeep, Toyota, etc. to produce something
>> like the old Subaru Brat, which was essentially a 4WD car with low
>> range gearing. With today's engine technology it could get gas mileage
>> in the low to mid 30s on the highway, while having true off-road
>> capability.
>>
>> Today's options are limited to "cute utes" or "soft utes" which lack
>> low range and are designated AWD rather than 4WD (Honda CR-V, Toyota
>> RAV-4, Ford Escape, and so on). To get offroad-capable 4WD, you're
>> forced to buy a truck or SUV that can only get MPG in the teens to low
>> 20s. There are plenty of conservationists who want to go off-road and
>> they shouldn't have to buy a bloated rig.
>>
>> The 2005 Toyota Tacomas and Nissan Frontiers show the trend toward size
>> over efficiency. Engineers managed to maintain mediocre fuel mileage
>> while making them as big as possible (using vvt, etc.) , but they could
>> have made them smaller, more agile and more efficient. A truck that
>> went from compact to midsize and became 5" wider with a 10" longer
>> wheelbase is not "better" off-road just because of a fancy new
>> drivetrain.
>>
>> Jeeps, including the Liberty, are still gas guzzlers and the ancient
>> Wrangler styling could be made a lot more aerodynamic. I see a lot of
>> potential for redesigning the Wrangler into something that could manage
>> mid to upper 20s MPG and wouldn't even have to be a hybrid.
>>
>> A powerplant with "only" 150 HP and similar torque could get the job
>> done in the right chassis. We need to stop building bigger engines just
>> to move bigger trucks or satisfy high school egos. People did fine with
>> less before they were hyped into "needing" 200+ HP to keep up with the
>> pack. For nitwits, tailgating someone on a 7% grade at 80 MPH may be
>> perceived as vital, but when you're off-road, excessive power is rarely
>> needed. Low-end torque (relative to body weight) is more important, and
>> lighter vehicles need less of it. Smaller engines reduce weight also.
>>
>> My perfect vehicle would have AWD aspects (auto torque split based on
>> wheel spin) but would also be a tough off-roader with at least 9" of
>> usable ground clearance; not just at the high points. The current
>> Subaru Outback is rated at over 8" of clearance but the frame sits too
>> low to make that very useful. I also see a practical use for ghetto
>> car-hopping technology. They could use hydraulics to lift the frame on
>> dirt roads and drop it back down for aerodynamics on pavement.
>>
>> C.T.
>>
>
>

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:12:40 GMT, Bonehenge
> wrote:

>:|On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 21:18:04 -0800, Matt Mead
> wrote:
>:|
>:|>How about the Jeep Liberty with the new diesel engine option?
>:|
>:|The Liberty has independent front suspension, and is not intended for
>:|actual off-roading beyond dirt roads.

funny how Peterson's 4 wheel and offroad ran a pair of libertys down
the Rubicon tail w/o breaking anything.. I'd call that a bit more
extreme than a "dirt road"

-Bret

It is, however, quite popular
>:|with the soccer mom who is too politically correct for a Suburban, in
>:|my area.
>:|
>:|Plus, the roof is welded on! <G>
>:|
>:|Barry